You can not use bombs and artillery effectively against these druged war criminals because they are hiding behind human shields.
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I'm dubious as to whether the Islamic State can really muster the force levels you claim.
However, as far as US bombing goes I will raise a few points.
1) The US (and NATO, etc...) operates a rigorous policy of picking its targets. This isn't just a 'fly-over Syria and if you see something, shoot it'. Firstly because that kills civilians, secondly because bombs cost money, and the smarter the bomb the more money, there comes a point where it isn't worth wasting it. There have been several thousand airstrikes in Syria, and yet Amnesty International (and organisation generally full of nonsense and prone to hyperbole) notes only 300 civilian casualties. That is a damn impressive record, particularly given the tendency of bombs to... well... blow up when they hit the target.
2) The coalition bombing campaign, at least from my understanding, isn't focusing so much on the frontlines as it is on the higher value targets. I.e., oil wells that the Islamic State uses for revenue, high ranking figures, etc... Whilst there are definitely frontline airstrikes, the focus would seem to be on using the bombs to do the most damage to the Islamic State in itself rather than its frontline forces.
3) When targets are hit, they tend to be small ones. The Islamic State, though by no means rational gentlemen of science, are not morons. They're going to try and avoid bunching up as much as possible. On top of this, high value targets like an important official or an oil well are only going to have so much around them. Quality over quantity. Thus each strike probably isn't killing that many IS fighters, and in some cases might kill none (i.e., hitting an oil well).
4) Building on this last point, it's probable that most of the stuff IS is packing is very hard to spot from the air. The bulk of their forces are probably pick-ups, guys riding them, and the odd piece of artillery or tank. In those circumstances it's hard to find the stuff in the first place, hard to clear it as a target, etc... Moreover there comes a point where it's simply not worth it to use a million dollar missile from a multi-million dollar aircraft which is staying on station for a cost of millions of dollars just to blow up a couple of guys.
This is another valid point, particularly when considered in the light of an unwillingness to stomach civilian collateral and the problems of identifying a target in a theatre where everyone uses the same equipment and looks very similar.
However, as far as US bombing goes I will raise a few points.
1) The US (and NATO, etc...) operates a rigorous policy of picking its targets. This isn't just a 'fly-over Syria and if you see something, shoot it'. Firstly because that kills civilians, secondly because bombs cost money, and the smarter the bomb the more money, there comes a point where it isn't worth wasting it. There have been several thousand airstrikes in Syria, and yet Amnesty International (and organisation generally full of nonsense and prone to hyperbole) notes only 300 civilian casualties. That is a damn impressive record, particularly given the tendency of bombs to... well... blow up when they hit the target.
2) The coalition bombing campaign, at least from my understanding, isn't focusing so much on the frontlines as it is on the higher value targets. I.e., oil wells that the Islamic State uses for revenue, high ranking figures, etc... Whilst there are definitely frontline airstrikes, the focus would seem to be on using the bombs to do the most damage to the Islamic State in itself rather than its frontline forces.
3) When targets are hit, they tend to be small ones. The Islamic State, though by no means rational gentlemen of science, are not morons. They're going to try and avoid bunching up as much as possible. On top of this, high value targets like an important official or an oil well are only going to have so much around them. Quality over quantity. Thus each strike probably isn't killing that many IS fighters, and in some cases might kill none (i.e., hitting an oil well).
4) Building on this last point, it's probable that most of the stuff IS is packing is very hard to spot from the air. The bulk of their forces are probably pick-ups, guys riding them, and the odd piece of artillery or tank. In those circumstances it's hard to find the stuff in the first place, hard to clear it as a target, etc... Moreover there comes a point where it's simply not worth it to use a million dollar missile from a multi-million dollar aircraft which is staying on station for a cost of millions of dollars just to blow up a couple of guys.
This is another valid point, particularly when considered in the light of an unwillingness to stomach civilian collateral and the problems of identifying a target in a theatre where everyone uses the same equipment and looks very similar.
Last edited:
- 1
And why exactly is blowing up people captured by druged up war criminals a bad thing?
I mean given what ISIL usually does to prisoners it might be preferably to end their misery quickly.
They bum-rushed Palmyra with 5000 dudes.
Reports say they threw 14,000 at Deir ez Zor.
They have killed thousands of Iraqi troops in Mosul so far and they seem to be holding back the Turks and Kurds in the North with ease.
So yes,i think they really can muster full divisions.
Besides they are holding all the Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq against a bunch of Shia armies,how hard could it be for them to get more volunteers?
Thing is, this is all very hearsay and without evidence to back it up. Now, I don't suggest that the Islamic State doesn't have thousands of men, but the groups own claims are almost certainly exaggerated. On top of this, men does not translate to equipment. I highly doubt they have the massive arsenals of armour and artillery you seem to credit them with. I also doubt they are organised in formations as large as divisions, in a Civil War of this scale such a large organisation would seem excessive and also too uniform for a chaotic conflict between largely unprofessional groups.
By divisions i was refering to mass of men per engagement,not really literal divisional command structure.
Also these claims are from the Syrian Army,not ISIL.
While they could certainly be inflating the numbers a bit to justify the defeats its non-the-less a fact ISIL is surviving under constant bombing from the Russian Air Force,which means they got a lot of replacements to work with seeing as how many of their men are being blown up while making those assaults.
As for equipment,between all the weapons going to the Syrian Rebels as well as the captured storehouses in Iraq and Syria i dont think they have any problems.
I know my own country sold 300 million dollars worth of guns to a certain Middle Eastern nations and those same weapons mysteriously showed up with ISIL.
Makes it all the worse that some of those guns were supose to be fancy new prototypes for our own army,which i might add hasnt even had the chance to fully finish field-testing them.
So to avoid going into full "back room dealings" topic il just say that yes,ISIL has lots of equipment.
It isn't.
First, as much as ISIS would like it to be that way, there is very little in the way solidly 'ISIS-controlled' territory.
Those 30+ vehicles could be Kurds doing a raid, one of the 'moderate' Islamist the US is buttbuddies with, anything.
ISIS does not fly identity markers so it is hard to tell.
Might even be White helmets or civilian relief.
After the whole "Russian unguided bombs= Barbaric; Nato guided bombs = Good"-fiasco they kinda sorta have to.
From what i gather ISIS uses everything in penny packets and smaller.
So i doubt you ever see a battery. Maybe you see two guns together, maybe three tanks.
Also most of the artillery they use, from what i understand, is mortars, light artillery, crew portable and hard to find.
Which brings us to the problem with air strikes:
You can only hit what you can see.
Guns are normally found by tracing their trajectory with counter-artillery radar, pinpointing their location and then unleashing hell in one form or the other.
Planes do not carry that kind of radar. They have no reason to. Which means they need to spot them. And you can do lots of stuff to make your artillery hard to find. It starts with camouflage nets and it does not end with firing from within buildings.
Air strikes are also hard in build-up areas because air strikes work LOS, and you have a lot of problems keeping your LOS with all the buildings.
So all in all less black magic more 'recruits from armed forces who have learned to hide their stuff from American Air since 1990'.
- 1
Firstly, Daesh (please lets refer to them as Daesh and not another term which lends them pseudo-legitimacy) has not wrecked any US or Russian large scale units. They may have won victories over small scale, isolated units attached to other rebel groups, but certainly have not defeated anything even close to either platoon or company/squadron strength forces.
As for claiming that a single mission was aborted due to overwhelming firepower ... where to start. SF operations tend not to be prolonged occupation. They tend to be direct action (i.e. kill or capture), covert reconnaissance or training/mentoring, undertaken with the aim of undertaking a specific objective with the maximum use of force and minimum risk to personnel. Hence, coming under contact with an adversary who is probably numerically superior is normally a good indication that you should try again another day.
- 1
The UK/US probably have as many ISTAR assets flying over Syria/Iraq as they do combat aircraft. And each combat aircraft tends to have a very very potent ISTAR capability (e.g. the RAF Tornado's RAPTOR pod).
Those human shields are likely to get butchered anyways,this is kind of like making an arguement if allies should have carpet bombed the camps in WW2.
At a certain point you have to wonder if you want to keep an x number of people alive today,or flatten the area and spare several times that many in the future.
They have been fielding division sized groups in quite a few places,just because the number is in the 10,000 range doesnt mean it has to be a large mass of men in the exact same spot.
I was under the impression the Kurds were coordinating with US Special Forces and that the White Helmets only operate in Western Syrian rebel pockets,not ISIL territory.
As for civilians,if they could just drive around in convoys they would probably be out of there,ISIL isnt very nice to people who try to run off.
I still dont see why they would care,they have gotten away with doing far worse against far less demonized enemies.
After reviewing quite a few videos of airstrikes i must say that "not seeing them" doesnt cut it,all it would take is to fly an UAV or something over a battle and you could see them clear as day.
Also i consider the "bombing strategic targets" hilarious since Russia had such an abundance of said targets when they finally got involved.
They have gotten into the business of cutting out the tongue of anyone who doesnt call them "Islamic State",that extends to anyone calling them ISIL.
In terms of legitimacy,they are a group of around 100,000 armed lunatics controling the area of a country and managing to somewhat administrate it.
I simply class them as a de-facto geopolitical entity,de-facto matters a lot more than de-jure.
In terms of only winning small scale victories,since none of the big powers care enough to actually put large formations on the ground those small scale encounters are really all that matters,why would the jihadists need to be capable of fighting a proper US Army division toe to toe if they will never see one.
With the aborted mission i was hinting more towards them having the coordination,alert level and mobility to respond to it so quickly with sufficient force,most third world armies wouldnt even notice a bunch of special forces helicopters sneaking up on them.
I would just like to make clear im not glorifying them,i simply feel it is important to maintain an objective view of the size and capabilities of an entity that is hostile to every sane person on earth.
When you get your UAV over the battlefield, you see people fighting.
But how do you tell who is who?
The Americans usually solve that by reflectors on their helmets or special blinking lights, but in Syria those are rare.
So you basically see two parties shooting at each other.
One is most likely allied with you and the other isn't.
And even if you can make out the main frontline and extrapolate who should be who, that does not give you much else.
The tank rampaging around, is that an ISIS tank getting to the front or rebel tank that got through the front or got turned around?!
The artillery position that is located in defilade; is that an advance mortar position of ISIS or of the rebels?
Or is it an ISIS position the rebels took over or a rebel position ISIS took over?
It gets worse because i lied when i talked about frontlines.
Mostly it is either attacking towns and then fighting in those; everything else is hardly worth the hassle.
So are the guys at the outskrits of town the last of the defenders (allied with you) or the first attackers?
Is the column driving towards the embattled village ISIS reinforcements or a relief party for the defenders?
The idea that just because you can see you can understand or identify is the one big myth that broke the legs of the Revolution in Military affairs.
Just because you see something does not mean that you know anything about it.
Well it would be fairly easy to phone the SAA and simply ask for detailed map's of their positions.
In fact its would be easy to do that with every organized groups fighting ISIL,simply talk to them.
You could also have your own dudes in contact with their officer's to keep you informed on where their guys are at a given moment.
Something Russia has been doing quite well since 2015...
In fact its would be easy to do that with every organized groups fighting ISIL,simply talk to them.
You could also have your own dudes in contact with their officer's to keep you informed on where their guys are at a given moment.
Something Russia has been doing quite well since 2015...
Are you serious?
Leaving out the obvious problems (trust, security of information, security of the connection, false falg operations, etc.) aren't those working with the Russians?
Yes, it is so obvious. I am not sure why the US has not organized all those factions yet by simply talking to them.
Could it be that it is not so easy to get groups which are often uneasy allies to the US at best to divulge their miliatry secrets?
If the officers know in the first place.
Part of that is that the Syrian army is, with the possible exception of the Kurds and the Turkish army where it is operating, the only proficient and competent fighting force in Syria.
Other organisation have groups and factions that do quite well (Chechens have a very good reputation where ever they fight) but are a mess organisatorically.
Also the Syrian army wears insignias (making their vehicles easily idenitfiable) and can establish direct radio contact with their Russian allies (since the cooperation is much closer than the American 'arm's length' approach).
Simply:
Pretty much none of the problems i highlighted pertain to the Syrian Army or their Russian support.
All of them apply to the collection of 'moderate rebels' and their US air support though.
- 1
You miss the part where the major battles with ISIL involve precisely organised armies one can easily talk to.
Palmyra,Al Bab,Deir ez Zor.
All these places are major battlefields with organized armies.
Im even being generous and not including the Kurds which have US special forces on the ground with them.
Only justification for the US not doing this is that it doesnt want to let the SAA avoid casualties,even at the cost of passively helping ISIL by not bombing them when they could.
As for the "moderates",they are utterly irrelevant in this since the SAA has formed a literal wall of territory between the "moderates" and ISIL,with some desert in the south being the only place the two can even meet.
As such it would be impossible for the SAA to use this sort of help for anything other than blowing up ISIL forces.
There is literally no millitary secret to be shared.
The basic procedure would be like this:
US officer:"We have planes ready to bomb ISIL forces in this area,please provide coordinates for places safe to strike".
Syrian officer:"Ok,excelent,here you go".
The US gets to kill ISIL,SAA forces get to not be overrun and many civilians get to not be massacred.
This is a win-win for everyone involved except ISIL.
Palmyra,Al Bab,Deir ez Zor.
All these places are major battlefields with organized armies.
Im even being generous and not including the Kurds which have US special forces on the ground with them.
Only justification for the US not doing this is that it doesnt want to let the SAA avoid casualties,even at the cost of passively helping ISIL by not bombing them when they could.
As for the "moderates",they are utterly irrelevant in this since the SAA has formed a literal wall of territory between the "moderates" and ISIL,with some desert in the south being the only place the two can even meet.
As such it would be impossible for the SAA to use this sort of help for anything other than blowing up ISIL forces.
There is literally no millitary secret to be shared.
The basic procedure would be like this:
US officer:"We have planes ready to bomb ISIL forces in this area,please provide coordinates for places safe to strike".
Syrian officer:"Ok,excelent,here you go".
The US gets to kill ISIL,SAA forces get to not be overrun and many civilians get to not be massacred.
This is a win-win for everyone involved except ISIL.
It has not been a year since the US 'accidentally' bombed the SAA.
So i don't see that kind of cooperation any time soon.
https://www.rt.com/news/359894-kerry-strike-syria-assad/
Bonus point for an ISIL assualt happening shortly after.
So i don't see that kind of cooperation any time soon.
https://www.rt.com/news/359894-kerry-strike-syria-assad/
Bonus point for an ISIL assualt happening shortly after.
That was brought about precisely because the US insists on role-playing Zeus and blindly shooting lightening from the sky instead of actually talking with the SAA.
I think we can both agree that the US policy towards Syria has been very unfriendly.
I dont see the Syrians as the ones causing this passive-agressive situation.
I think we can both agree that the US policy towards Syria has been very unfriendly.
I dont see the Syrians as the ones causing this passive-agressive situation.
No, but that is actually just one more reason for the Syrians not tell the Americans were exactly thea can hit them.
That doesnt adress the problem of the US being able to hit SAA with laser accuracy and still being incapable of doing anything to ISIL.
Besides under my scenario the SAA doesnt need to tell the USA where its positions are,it just needs to tell them where ISIL is.
I dont think they will worry about the US trying to imagine their own location via 50 coordinate requests.
Besides under my scenario the SAA doesnt need to tell the USA where its positions are,it just needs to tell them where ISIL is.
I dont think they will worry about the US trying to imagine their own location via 50 coordinate requests.
The difference is that SAA works and behaves like an army and ISIS does not.
The US Air Force was trained to hit an opposing conventional army with great accuracy and damage.
That gets much harder when your opponent has none of the things you learned to attack.
And the trust isue also swings the other way:
I doubt the USA would be willing to trust the SAA to give them just ISIS positions and not Jabhat al Nusra positions (which for some odd reason the US considers a quasi-ally).
The US Air Force was trained to hit an opposing conventional army with great accuracy and damage.
That gets much harder when your opponent has none of the things you learned to attack.
And the trust isue also swings the other way:
I doubt the USA would be willing to trust the SAA to give them just ISIS positions and not Jabhat al Nusra positions (which for some odd reason the US considers a quasi-ally).
Like i said,moderates dont exist in the major fronts between SAA and ISIL,so there is literally nobody else to blow up.
Also its compleatly irrelevant if ISIL behaves like a proper army or not,all the US has to do is drop bombs,they have proven to be that capable at least.
Also its compleatly irrelevant if ISIL behaves like a proper army or not,all the US has to do is drop bombs,they have proven to be that capable at least.
- Status